60 Minutes Interview

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 49
#31
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,755
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Trump knowingly stashed cases full of classified documents in his beach club next to the toilet and on his stage, then lied to the FBI about having possession of them and ordered all evidence of their whereabouts destroyed. That is a serious and obvious crime. Anyone who does that should go to jail.
You will always find excuses to do evil things like going after political opponents, but you do know that the photo the FBI did was staged right? The documents never had the words classified printed on them for example. 

Now would an organization that has the truth on its side need to lie?

It's a simple yes or no question. Don't complicate it. Do the good guys need to do things like stage photos?

Topic's author
#32
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in it's totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.

Example:

“The president has accused CBS of aiding his 2024 Democratic opponent through deceptive editing one month before he and Harris faced off in the presidential election. The saga began when Harris was widely mocked for a "word salad" answer she gave to "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker during a preview of the interview on "Face the Nation," and CBS then aired a different answer to the same question during a primetime special.”
In this example, you would have us believe that what this is about is a president who cares so deeply about news organizations sticking to unbiased fact based journalism that he believes it is worth his time and attention to focus on this one network over this one particular example.

Meanwhile, this very same president has said absolutely nothing about another news network who had to pay almost a billion dollar defamation settlement because they lied so blatantly and repeatedly and was forced to turn over the evidence proving that they knew the stories they aired were all total bullshit.

Who also happens to be the same president that endlessly praises every single outlet that covers him favorably and attacks every outlet that covers him negatively.

The same president that has never, ever, ever, defended anyone's first amendment right to say anything critical of him, ever.

The same guy who as president, finds it worth his time and attention to attack celebrities and talk show hosts on social media who make fun of him.

The same guy who literally sued a comedian for making a joke about how he looks so orange he might be the son of an orangutan.

The same guy who tries to primary every politician that doesn't side with him on everything.

The same guy who personally attacks every judge who has ever ruled against him while personally praising every judge who sides with him.

The same guy who calls the free press the enemy of the American people.

The same guy who said explicitly, repeatedly, that he was running for president to be "your (as in everyone who opposes networks like CBS) retribution".

The same guy praises every dictator on earth for being tough, while attacking every democratically elected leader in the free world.

Yeah... That guy. That's the guy you claim is so concerned about fair and unbiased news coverage.

Or...

It could be that the guy who has spent his entire life punishing any and everyone who treats him unfavorably... Is trying to punish a network who treats him unfavorably.

Gee, tough one.

#33
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,128
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legal resident protected from deportation by a 2019 court order who has lived in the U.S. since 2011, can legally sue the US government for being illegally deported. He could sue the agency or the individual officers that wrongfully deported him in federal court civil claim based on 4th amendment and due process violations, in addition to seeking monetary damages under the federal tort claims act, if applicable. He would need a trial attorney admitted to a federal court that understands immigration litigation to help him pursue a claim.
I hope he gets his day in court.
Topic's author
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
You will always find excuses to do evil things like going after political opponents
No, I will always defend that which is rational and in line with basic values of honesty, integrity, and consistency.

Trump committed obvious and serious crimes. Therefore, in line with honesty, integrity, and consistency, the only rational response is to charge him with committing serious and obvious crimes. That's how it works.

you do know that the photo the FBI did was staged right?
No, I just have forgotten my tin foil hat.

The documents never had the words classified printed on them for example
Not every document in the photos was classified, and not every classified document has a huge red stamp ready for its photo to be taken.

Please tell me you have more evidence for this extraordinary claim than that.

Now would an organization that has the truth on its side need to lie?

It's a simple yes or no question. Don't complicate it. Do the good guys need to do things like stage photos?
The fact that you are already asking that loaded question without providing anything that could be considered a rational argument in support of is premise shows where the problem is.

Prove the photos were staged, then we can talk about what it does or doesn't imply.
#35
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,755
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The FBI admitted to staging it. Why do you think the FBI is lying?


Besides I could find excuses for why Biden committed serious crimes or Clinton. You don't go after political opponents like the gestapo did it's evil. Just don't be evil

Prove the photos were staged, then we can talk about what it does or doesn't imply.
Doing fraudulent activities destroys your ability to  claim you are an unbiased third party who wouldn't lie. 

It's the same reason OJ wasn't convicted of a murder he definitely committed. Once the police lie you can't trust their evidence
#36
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 7,755
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
What's sad is that you are waiting to learn if it is true or not that the FBI staged photos. An honest person would just be able to easily say whether the police lying or not is ethical and what it means for trusting them when they create chain of custody logs
#37
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,905
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in its totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.
You say “no,” but you then go on to restate the same thing, that being “You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.” but in your own words.

In this example, you would have us believe that what this is about is a president who cares so deeply about news organizations sticking to unbiased fact based journalism that he believes it is worth his time and attention to focus on this one network over this one particular example.

Yeah... That guy. That's the guy you claim is so concerned about fair and unbiased news coverage.
I’m not “having you believe” or claiming either of those strawman imaginings of yours. What I am saying is what I already wrote… at least twice actually, and that is that Trump has a case here according to FCC regulations regarding news outlets. As you like to say, “This is basic English.”

You seem to believe that a person can file a lawsuit on the grounds that they simply dislike a particular person or entity— as if a person has some legal standing with “I don’t like you, so pay up!” That is an odd and unfounded belief.
#38
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,128
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Prove the photos were staged, then we can talk about what it does or doesn't imply.
Trump should be sent to El Salvador prison he setup.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
What's sad is that you are waiting to learn if it is true or not that the FBI staged photos. An honest person would just be able to easily say whether the police lying or not is ethical and what it means for trusting them when they create chain of custody logs.
DoubleR is the kind of person that waits for institutionalized authority to greenlight whether he can do basic hygiene.

When American Psychologists wanted to explain why so many average Germans were fine with killing Jews and following orders from authority, they set up the Milgram experiment.

Your average Democrat today would easily fail this experiment and issue severe shocks without hesitation.

Topic's author
#40
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
They didn't admit to staging it. They "admitted" that the cover sheets were placed there by themselves for the purposes of taking the photos.

So why do I put "admitted" in scare quotes? Because it's not an admission, it's standard procedure. Turns out that taking pictures of classified documents for a court filling, which is public information, is probably not a good idea. Who knew?

Or here, how about we just ask Chatgpt why the FBI would use cover sheets for classified document photos:

In the Trump classified documents case, FBI agents used classified document cover sheets when taking photos of the materials found at Mar-a-Lago to:
  1. Protect National Security Information: Some of the documents may have had highly sensitive information visible on their covers or first pages. Placing standard classification cover sheets (like "TOP SECRET" or "SECRET") over them helped prevent disclosure of specific sensitive content in photographs used in court filings or for internal records.
  2. Demonstrate Classification Level: The cover sheets visually indicated the classification level of the documents (e.g., “Top Secret//SCI”), which helped the public and court understand the nature of the materials without revealing their actual content.
  3. Standard Evidence Handling: It’s part of protocol in handling and documenting classified materials—especially when used as evidence. The cover sheets help preserve chain of custody and ensure no inadvertent exposure.
  4. Visual Clarity for Legal and Media Use: In public court filings (like those released by the DOJ), the government wanted to show that classified materials were recovered without revealing what was actually classified. The cover sheets provided a clear visual shorthand.
So it turns out, if you wanted an answer to your question all you had to do was ask, but that was apparently too much.

Besides I could find excuses for why Biden committed serious crimes
Yeah, the problem with that is thing this we call reality, and when you combine it with this thing we call logic... Disingenuous proclamations tend not to not survive.

You don't go after political opponents like the gestapo did it's evil.
Serious question; is it then your belief that when one party is in power, their political rivals ate too be given free reign to commit whatever crimes they like?

Second question, what are your thoughts on Donald Trump signing an executive order instructing the DOJ to go after Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor?
Topic's author
#41
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
No, what I would do is utilize logic 101 by looking at the situation in its totality, then use Occam's razor to determine what best explains the individuals motives.
You say “no,” but you then go on to restate the same thing, that being “You, however, would characterize the situation as this particular plaintiff is suing the company only because he personally doesn’t like the company.” but in your own words.
"In your own words" there is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

The obvious implication of your analogy is that I'm asserting Trump's motives with no evidence or reason to believe it so other than the mere fact that he spoke out against CBS.

The problem with this implication is that it ignores both reality and logic 101.

So I listed the plethora of reasons via examples of Trump demonstrating what his interests and intentions have been throughout his entire life to show how they align exactly with what I'm saying.

The takeaway? The obvious implication of your analogy is wrong.

I’m not “having you believe” or claiming either of those strawman imaginings of yours. What I am saying is what I already wrote… at least twice actually, and that is that Trump has a case here according to FCC regulations regarding news outlets.
Well first of all, no he doesn't, at least not in this example. The argument in that case is beyond stupid when looking at the facts, which is why I didn't even bother to get into it. It's just not serious.

Second, you talk about news outlets (plural) but he's only attacking one which is my point, this isn't about how news outlets operate. It's about him using state power to punish those who cover him unfavorably. That is obvious for all the reasons I've already explained.

So it is not credible that you're just merely posting this "fact" as an FYI not tied to any greater point. That is, at best, meaningless.
#42
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,905
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
The obvious implication of your analogy is that I'm asserting Trump's motives with no evidence or reason to believe it so other than the mere fact that he spoke out against CBS.
Way off. Please reread what I wrote. To reiterate: what I am saying is that you would believe the plaintiff is suing without any underlying, valid legal basis— that is, if the particular plaintiff happened to be Trump. The legal basis in my example is fraud. “This is basic English.”

Your sloppy reasoning can be summarized like this:

“Everyone knows that Trump makes illegitimate claims. We just heard another claim by Trump. Ergo, it’s an illegitimate claim. Yet you’re defending it!”

Well first of all, no he doesn't, at least not in this example. The argument in that case is beyond stupid when looking at the facts, which is why I didn't even bother to get into it. It's just not serious.
Oh, the irony. This “rebuttal” is merely a big, fat (and unserious) appeal to incredulity. In other words:

“It is impossible to give a valid defense; therefor your defense cannot be valid.”

Second, you talk about news outlets (plural) but he's only attacking one which is my point, this isn't about how news outlets operate. It's about him using state power to punish those who cover him unfavorably. That is obvious for all the reasons I've already explained.
*facepalm* I might need a lie down after this… The regulations apply to all broadcast news outlets— plural. The accusation of a news outlet breaking those rules that it agreed to operate under applies to one news outlet in this case— CBS. “This is basic English.”

So it is not credible that you're just merely posting this "fact" as an FYI not tied to any greater point.
This is because you are not a serious interlocutor, and you cannot help but bring all your projection luggage into an argument, hence the aforementioned irony.

The greater point, since you have clearly missed it when I stated it clearly initially, is that there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under— unless you happen to believe that FCC regulations themselves violate the 1A.
Topic's author
#43
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The regulations apply to all broadcast news outlets— plural. The accusation of a news outlet breaking those rules that it agreed to operate under applies to one news outlet in this case— CBS.
If the regulations apply to all outlets...

and only one outlet is being called out...

then...

in order for this to be a good faith underlying basis...

the accuser must believe that this is the only outlet who has demonstrably violated the regulation.

And yet, as I've already explained in great detail...

that is not a credible assertion.

Therefore...

It is not a good faith underlying basis.

Therefore...

There is some other reason why he is doing this. And to figure out what that reason is, look to what else this man has said and done.

Now, scroll up to post 32 and try again.

there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under
This is remarkably disingenuous.

We're not talking about Joe Schmoe on Twitter. We're talking about the president of the United States, as in the guy who has the final say on what the FCC focuses their attention on.

And we're not talking about him "complaining". We're talking about him publicly declaring that the FCC "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS and even called out the individual whom he expects to make it happen.

Excuses for violating CBS's first amendment rights are just that, excuses. They don't make the violation disappear.

Punishing a news outlet for coverage you don't like is a blatant first amendment violation. That is what this is.
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,586
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Punishing a news outlet for coverage you don't like is a blatant first amendment violation. That is what this is.
Even if you liked disingenuous coverage, it still violates the FCC.

Like or dislike is meaningless in this context.
#45
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,905
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
If the regulations apply to all outlets...
Negative. You have not read the entirety of my first post to you, evidently. Hint: it’s the last bullet point.

and only one outlet is being called out...

then...

in order for this to be a good faith underlying basis...

the accuser must believe that this is the only outlet who has demonstrably violated the regulation.

And yet, as I've already explained in great detail...

that is not a credible assertion.

Therefore...

It is not a good faith underlying basis.
False assumption, non sequitur, red herring… they are all there! I have said nothing about the president having pure as the driven snow motives in this. That is you putting words in my mouth. It is plausible that, as it stands now, CBS is the only broadcast news outlet which Trump dislikes which he has a tangible case against vis a vis the FCC rules for broadcast news accreditation. Please, repeat after me: “broadcast news accreditation.” Why is this phrase important? Because this is the purview of the FCC and CBS has had, and presumably wishes to continue having, broadcast news accreditation. So, to reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am saying that it is plausible that Trump has a valid case against CBS, and this case does not conflict with the 1A.

If you do not believe he has a case, why are you so threatened by what would only be a bunch of hot air and fist shaking?

There is some other reason why he is doing this. And to figure out what that reason is, look to what else this man has said and done.
Trump doesn’t like CBS. AND he has a plausible legal case against it. Two things can be simultaneously true.

This is remarkably disingenuous.
Well, that is your personal opinion, and you’re entitled to it.

We're not talking about Joe Schmoe on Twitter. We're talking about the president of the United States, as in the guy who has the final say on what the FCC focuses their attention on.
So, you think that Trump can order the FCC to fine CBS on the basis that he doesn’t like them? Why stop (or start) there? Why, he can just order various authorities to fine NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times… right?

And we're not talking about him "complaining". We're talking about him publicly declaring that the FCC "will impose the maximum fines and punishment" on CBS and even called out the individual whom he expects to make it happen.
A lawsuit is also referred to as “a complaint” in legal circles. Ask me how I could possibly conclude that you aren’t an attorney.

Excuses for violating CBS's first amendment rights are just that, excuses. They don't make the violation disappear.
Again, this is your personal opinion, and you’re entitled to it. If you wish to argue a conflict with the 1A, then by all means, do so. But if you just want to shake your fist and yell “Trumpman bad!” then I will leave you alone to do that.

Punishing a news outlet for coverage you don't like is a blatant first amendment violation. That is what this is.
“there is no conflict between the First Amendment and complaining that a company isn’t following the rules it agreed to operate under— unless you happen to believe that FCC regulations themselves violate the 1A.”

And we are on the merry go round now. Weee!
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
I am saying that it is plausible that Trump has a valid case against CBS, and this case does not conflict with the 1A.
And I've been saying that whether there is a plausibly valid case against CBS is irrelevant to whether this is a first amendment violation.

It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated.

To put it another way; if the violation you are citing is merely a pretext, your enforcement actions are illegitimate regardless of whether the violation occurred.

Trump has in fact made very clear that this supposed violation CBS committed is nothing more than a pretext, this is why you and all of MAGA want to focus on whether CBS committed a violation or even take a furthet step back (because that cannot be credibly argued) and just argue that the plausibility of them having committed a violation is itself enough for us to disregard any accusation of a rights violation.

It's fundamentally dishonest and you would never afford any democrat such grace. In fact, aren't you one of those who was claiming that Trump's indictments themselves were proof of a weaponized justice department (which is bad) and therefore we didn't need to adjudicate whether he actually committed the crimes to know that?

If you do not believe he has a case, why are you so threatened by what would only be a bunch of hot air and fist shaking?
Well first of all, because Trump's hot air and fist shaking are not without consequence. I have been saying for years that the true danger of Trump is far beyond anything he can actuate as the president. The danger he brings is the rot of the American mind which he is facilitating. A perfect example is when otherwise intelligent and educated people can look at a man punishing news outlets he doesn't like for criticizing him and find excuses to not only not care about it, but to convince themselves that anyone who does has some kind of derangement syndrome.

But also, it's not hot air and fist shaking. That was Trump term 1, where he, having no idea how government worked, surrounded himself with people who did and who respected the constitution, effectively serving as a check against his abuses. That is not Trump term two. He does not care about rules or processes, and he has no tolerance for anyone telling him no, no matter how wrong or illegal. What he's doing here with CBS is the authoritarian creep people like me talked about all campaign season. He will not stop until he is stopped. But MAGA couldn't care less, you guys never do until it's you.

So, you think that Trump can order the FCC to fine CBS on the basis that he doesn’t like them? Why stop (or start) there? Why, he can just order various authorities to fine NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times… right?
That's what comes next. Google Democratic backsliding.

A lawsuit is also referred to as “a complaint” in legal circles. Ask me how I could possibly conclude that you aren’t an attorney.
We're talking about a social media post genius, not a lawsuit.

If you wish to argue a conflict with the 1A, then by all means, do so. But if you just want to shake your fist and yell “Trumpman bad!” then I will leave you alone to do that.
The fact that I've said everything I have and “Trumpman bad!” is all you heard... This is why I wake up everyday knowing I'm right. If you had an actual argument against the things I've said you would offer it instead of either not hearing anything I've said or just pretending not to.

#47
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,905
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
And I've been saying that whether there is a plausibly valid case against CBS is irrelevant to whether this is a first amendment violation.

It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated.

To put it another way; if the violation you are citing is merely a pretext, your enforcement actions are illegitimate regardless of whether the violation occurred.
Really? Wait… no, not really:

“No, racist intent generally does not disqualify a speeding ticket.Speeding tickets are based on objective evidence of violating traffic laws, not subjective motivations of the officer. While racial bias in policing is a serious issue, it doesn't negate the validity of a speeding ticket. 

Elaboration:
  • Objective Evidence:
    Speeding tickets are typically issued based on the officer's observation of the speed limit and the driver's speed, often corroborated by radar or lidar devices. 
  • No Legal Basis:
    There's no legal precedent or established legal defense that allows a driver to be free of a speeding ticket solely because they believe the officer was motivated by racial bias. 
  • Focus on Enforcement:
    Law enforcement focuses on enforcing traffic laws, and the validity of a ticket depends on the objective evidence of speeding, not the officer's perceived motivations.”

Don’t even waste your time fabricating a response. Just… don’t. At this point, my morbid curiosity regarding the depths of your BS antics has been well fulfilled.

The fact that I've said everything I have and “Trumpman bad!” is all you heard... This is why I wake up everyday knowing I'm right. If you had an actual argument against the things I've said you would offer it instead of either not hearing anything I've said or just pretending not to.

Sometimes it’s hard to believe you’re for real.

The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on, and your dismissive bit of self delusion is your takeaway from our discussion… This is how I know that you are guilty of virtually everything you accuse your opponents of doing. I’ll leave you to your deaf and inconsolable ranting. May you someday find the meaningful, good faith conversation you are purportedly looking for…

#48
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,128
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@cristo71
Sometimes it’s hard to believe you’re for real.

The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on, and your dismissive bit of self delusion is your takeaway from our discussion… This is how I know that you are guilty of virtually everything you accuse your opponents of doing. I’ll leave you to your deaf and inconsolable ranting. May you someday find the meaningful, good faith conversation you are purportedly looking for…
Give him more time to deal with his personal issues.
Topic's author
#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,694
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
“No, racist intent generally does not disqualify a speeding ticket.Speeding tickets are based on objective evidence of violating traffic laws, not subjective motivations of the officer. While racial bias in policing is a serious issue, it doesn't negate the validity of a speeding ticket. 
This is where it helps to read and understand the conversion you are taking part in. Here is what I wrote, take note of the bold:

"It is illegal for a police officer to pull someone over and give them a ticket because they're black. If that's the officers motivation and that can be shown, the question of whether the individual was speeding is irrelevant to the fact that his rights have been violated."

I wasn't arguing that the individual cannot get a speeding ticket. I was arguing that he is still being discriminated against regardless of whether he committed the violation or not. Here, let's see what Chatgpt has to say about that:

Is being discriminated against considered a violation of ones rights?

ChatGPT said:
Yes, being discriminated against can be considered a violation of one's rights—especially when it involves protected characteristics like race, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin.
So why does this matter? Because if you bothered to read the OP and take note of what it is about you would know that the central point here, MAGA hypocrisy aside, is that Trump is violating the first amendment. Specifically, he is violating CBS's first amendment rights. 

Discrimination means to treat someone differently based on superficial characteristics (as in characteristics that are not relevant to the standard of treatment set by the law or established practices). The key word in that definition is differently.

Therefore to show that Trump is not "discriminating" against CBS for their unfavorable coverage of him, you would need to show that his treatment of them (attacking them for this "violation") is consistent with how he treats every other network with a broadcast news accreditation in this regard. But you won't even try, because you know that is a load of bullshit and so does everyone else. This is not about FCC standards, Trump couldn't care less about that. This purely about punishment for unfavorable coverage. Full stop.

The fact that I have addressed everything you’ve posted on this thread head on
You haven't. The only thing you've offered in this thread is a defense against Trump's alleged 1A violation by suggesting that CBS might have committed an FCC violation. But as the example above shows, that argument is a non sequitur. CBS can simultaneously be guilty of an FCC violation and have it's 1A rights violated just as a person can simultaneously be discriminated against while being guilty of speeding. So since one does not negate the other your point here fails to address the central point of this thread.